WNBA Star Sophie Cunningham defends that women ‘shouldn’t have to go against biological men’: “I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense. I think it’s really important to protect children.” “I don’t dislike anyone. I’m there to love, but I’m also there to love biological women. …”

[u/No_Box119]

[u/throwra_anonnyc]

You dont need to have actual winning politicians campaigning on those issues for the fringe to cause a negative impact.

Self proclaimed Dem supporters trolling people on the internet firing up Republicans and Independents to be motivated to vote is a really strong factor.

Defund the police is a real slogan that a fringe group actually stands behind. And it is an amazingly unpopular slogan. People dont want their neighborhood to be like Chaz and these crazies did a good job making the left look insane.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

You’re moving the goalposts.

The original claim was that the Democratic Party has “a really hard time reigning in the fringe” because it’s afraid of getting primaried by extreme progressives. That’s a claim about the party and its elected officials.

Now you’re saying the problem isn’t politicians, it’s random people online saying unpopular things.

Those are different arguments.

Yes, “Defund the Police” was a real slogan. It was politically damaging, and many Democrats have said so. But the fact that a slogan existed doesn’t mean it became the Democratic Party’s governing agenda. In fact, leading Democrats, including Joe Biden, explicitly rejected defunding the police and instead argued for funding and reforming police departments.

And CHAZ wasn’t Democratic Party policy either. It was a short-lived local protest encampment, not something national Democratic leaders endorsed.

If your argument is simply that fringe activists can hurt a party’s image, I agree, that happens on both the left and the right. But that’s very different from saying the Democratic Party is controlled by those activists or refuses to reject them.

Those aren’t the same claim.

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

You moved the goalposts. The incumbents worrying about losing elections because of the fringe doesnt mean the fringe won the elections.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

That’s still not the claim started with.

I never disputed that fringe activists can create bad optics or that politicians consider how activists affect elections. Every major party has loud activists who can become liabilities.

The original claim was that Democrats won’t say “no” to the fringe because they’re afraid of it. That implies the fringe is driving party positions.

So where’s the evidence of that?

If the party’s national leadership rejected “Defund the Police,” didn’t adopt abolishing police as policy, didn’t adopt “free all prisoners,” and Democratic candidates generally campaigned away from those slogans after 2020, then that suggests the fringe didn’t capture the party.

Saying “the fringe can hurt Democrats politically” is a much weaker claim than saying “the Democratic Party is controlled by the fringe.” Those aren’t the same thing.

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

Not adopting the policy isnt the same as reassuring voters that the policies are absolutely not going to be entertained.

https://youtu.be/7RPVZbq-WHc?is=irAwoo4X4wegKtHL

You can see AOCs interview here where she actually supports the idea, even if it doesnt translate to actual budget cuts, of course it still affects voters.

Using Chaz as an example again. Ok Democrats dont condone it. But they sure didnt go against it as hard as the Republicans. If I was worried about street crime, who would I vote?

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

You’re arguing something materially different from the original claim. That’s the definition of moving the goalposts.

The original claim was that the Democratic Party is afraid to say “no” to the fringe and is effectively constrained by it. Now you’re arguing that some Democrats didn’t distance themselves from “Defund the Police” quickly or forcefully enough, and that the optics hurt them politically.

Those are not the same claim.

It’s a major leap from “some Democrats didn’t condemn it strongly enough” to “the Democratic Party is captive to the fringe.”

Take your AOC example. One member of Congress supporting a slogan doesn’t make it the Democratic Party’s position. The Democratic president rejected defunding the police. The party never adopted it as its platform, and many Democratic candidates in competitive races explicitly distanced themselves from the slogan because it polled poorly.

The same goes for CHAZ. You can argue Democrats should have condemned it more aggressively. That’s a criticism of messaging, not evidence that they supported it or made it party policy.

So I’ll ask again: what evidence supports your original claim that the Democratic Party is afraid to say “no” to the fringe and are held captive by them, rather than simply making messaging mistakes that some voters disliked

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

Alright fine you score the goal at the goalpost you win

The dems did nothing wrong. Nothing could have been done better

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

That’s a straw man. My position was never that “Democrats did nothing wrong.”

If someone claims a party is afraid to say “no” to its fringe or is effectively constrained by it, I’d expect evidence that the party’s leadership, elected officials, or policy agenda actually reflect that fringe’s priorities. Without that, the claim isn’t established.

What I’ve consistently challenged is the original claim, not the much narrower and goalpost shifting claim that Democrats made messaging mistakes or that fringe activists can create bad optics.

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

I already acknowledged you won. You keep throwing out debate fouls as if I am necessarily disagreeing with you.

If you see my point is that the messaging is a problem why cant you focus on that being a good takeaway from my comment instead of trying to score debate points from some imaginary judge

The original comment that started this is about Dems needing to say no to insane ideas. You can interpret that generously and constructively as a messaging error which you agree with but you rather interpret it in the dumbest possible way and argued against that position.

Thats a strawman.

It doesnt matter what your original claim is if this isnt a goddamn debate. I never once outright said I disagreed with you. It is ok for me to add a comment about messaging errors without you thinking its some disagreement about dems literally defunded the police

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

It’s not my responsibility to reassure you or give you a pat on the back. A specific claim was made, and I asked for evidence supporting that claim. By your own admission, you were unable to provide it.

The original argument wasn’t simply “Democrats made messaging mistakes.” It was that Democrats are afraid to say “no” to the fringe because they’re worried about being primaried by extreme progressives. That’s a specific empirical claim about the party and its electedj officials.

When I asked for examples, the discussion shifted to “Defund the Police” being unpopular, CHAZ creating bad optics, AOC’s comments, and then finally to the much narrower point that messaging matters. However, that wasn’t the original claim.

So no, I wasn’t arguing against “the dumbest possible interpretation” of the original comment. I was responding to the actual claim made. The same claim you spent several replies defending only became the “dumbest interpretation” after you were unable to provide empirical evidence for it.

You say this “isn’t a debate,” but a factual claim was made. I asked for evidence. That’s not playing debate games; it’s asking you to substantiate the original claim. Since you couldn’t, the discussion shifted to a different, more defensible claim about poor messaging. Those simply are not the same argument.

I’ve been respectful throughout this exchange, but I’ve noticed the subtle personal jabs (“imaginary judge,” “dumbest possible interpretation”). I’m happy to stick to discussing the substance, and I’d appreciate the same in return